Presumed liability

[Chris S]

@Chris S Would you honestly throw yourself in front of a car for the compo?

Have a look at the standard figures for personal injury (google will find them for you). Now tell me that I could pay you to break your arm, at those rates. (Then consider that in an RTA, you risk the injury being much worse than you planned.)

People do fake accidents and then put in huge claims for PTSD (etc)

 

[Andy in Germany]

Would the same people who are so concerned about 'protecting the vulnerable' also support 'presumed guilt' in rape cases?

I don't think that you can equate support for one as being support for the other, no

 

[Chris S]

Standard confusion; this is liability (financial), not guilt. Drivers have insurance for RTAs - not for rape.

And driver's policies are terminated once a successful claim is made against them. They then have to pay huge increase in premiums to take out new ones, assuming they can get cover in the first place. It's not just the insurers who lose out.

 

[Andy in Germany]

There's a way around the 'crash for cash' scenario - a nationally-run accident compensation corporation (ACC) like they have in NZ. If you get injured, whoever causes it, there's compensation and help with rehabilitation and medical costs. It just happens.
This means there's no ambulance chasing lawyers. None. Compensation culture isn't a thing. A handy side-effect is that you don't need to buy car insurance - you can buy fully-comp, if you want to, but third-party cover is part of the ACC.

I suppose we have a similar thing here for employees and school children or students: I'm covered by a similar thing to ACC, roughly from the moment I leave my home, all the time at work, and to the point I get back to my front door. It's probably not a comprehensive as ACC but it does cover accidents and medical costs.

 

[Andy in Germany]

And driver's policies are terminated once a successful claim is made against them. They then have to pay huge increase in premiums to take out new ones, assuming they can get cover in the first place. It's not just the insurers who lose out.

I think that's the point. Drivers will be more careful if they know the consequences are going to hurt them financially.

 

[Chris S]

And what about cyclists? I've lost count of the number of pedestrians who have wandered out in front of me, either because they were on their phones or they just weren't paying attention. If I had collided with them then I'd have been financially liable for their careless behaviour.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Around here muggers and drug dealers use bikes. I wouldn't take them long to realize that they could make much more money by bouncing onto car bonnets and then scamming their insurers.

The other aspect of this in Germany is that legally you have to call the police to every RTC: failure to do so is a hit and run, so any mugger or drug dealer would have to explain what happened to the police, every time.

 

[Andy in Germany]

And what about cyclists? I've lost count of the number of pedestrians who have wandered out in front of me, either because they were on their phones or they just weren't paying attention. I'd have been held liable for their careless behaviour.

Yes. The principle is that the person "introducing the most risk" in any situation is liable, so if I'm cycling on a street and a pedestrian steps out, I'm responsible for avoiding an accident, because by choosing to ride a bike, I'm more dangerous then the pedestrian.

That said, if they clearly do something really stupid, then it generally gets cleared up, it's only presumed liability, not automatic liability.

 

[Solocle]

Our own experience of a country with Presumed liability (cut and pased from my blog many years ago):


Some time ago, Eldest Son had a very minor collision with a car on a Spielstrasse (shared space street, 7km/h limit). Being about six at the time, Eldest Son didn’t know that in Germany you give way to vehicles coming from the right, didn’t stop on a junction, and was clipped by a very expensive vehicle speeding up the hill. Eldest Son was fine, but Expensive Car had some minor damage.

Beautiful Wife learned to drive in Japan, and didn’t know that in Germany you should always call the police when you have an accident, so when the driver said “we don’t need to bother calling the police”,* gave her his address, then drove off saying he needed to go to an appointment, she accepted it.

A few weeks later a rather large bill arrived.

We have liability insurance, so we wrote to our insurance company and explained what had happened. They found it very amusing, wrote to the driver and reminded him about Strict Liability, in particular that if a car hits a child, the driver is always liable. (Driving over the speed limit was also a bit naughty, as was not calling the police, which in Germany made it a hit-and-run, but we’ll ignore that)

The driver tried to make much of the point that he technically had right of way on the junction, and his lawyers sent us a threatening letter with an even bigger bill in the hope we’d panic and pay up, which we passed on to the insurance company. They wrote to said Lawyers and asked them to kindly stop messing about, and that was that.

Had Eldest Son been injured, the rules would mean the driver of Expensive Car would be held responsible. whereas in the UK it would have meant a long legal battle for us to get compensation or simply not be held liable for scratching his paint. His insurance would have had to pay, at least partly, for treatment and rehabilitation, pushing up his premiums. Drivers -unfortunately- seem to be more aware of this than just the danger posed by a ton of metal to vulnerable road users, and it makes them slightly more careful. As I recently heard a policeman complain: “Unfortunately, as soon as you drive a car in Germany, you are assumed to be responsible if any accident happens” ** I’m still convinced that German drivers are more cautious around pedestrians and cyclists than British drivers, and I’m pretty sure it isn’t because German drivers have a better understanding of the value of human life.

It also sends a clear message that the law is there to protect more vulnerable people. I’d have thought this was a given in any civilised country, but that’s just me.

*A phrase rarely heard except from drivers involved a motor vehicle collision and from people with a black jumper, crowbar and torch, kneeling in front of a broken safe at midnight. They could be right, of course.

**And this was the policeman supposed to be telling us about pedestrian and cycling safety. The mind boggles…

Also worth noting that Spielstrasse quite literally translates as "play street", so the presence of children is very easy to anticipate!

 

[matticus]

And what about ...

Here we go!

 

[dodgy]

Around here muggers and drug dealers use bikes. I wouldn't take them long to realize that they could make much more money by bouncing onto car bonnets and then scamming their insurers.

Oh come off it.

 

[dodgy]

Would the same people who are so concerned about 'protecting the vulnerable' also support 'presumed guilt' in rape cases?

What is wrong with you?
Most of the civilised countries of the world already have presumed liability. It is a good thing (tm).

 

[mjr]

And driver's policies are terminated once a successful claim is made against them. They then have to pay huge increase in premiums to take out new ones, assuming they can get cover in the first place. It's not just the insurers who lose out.

This is not universally true. I had two claims on my insurance (due to hitting things not people) for a while. The premium only increased when a hit and run on my parked car caused a third claim before the others expred!

 

[Andy in Germany]

Yes. The principle is that the person "introducing the most risk" in any situation is liable, so if I'm cycling on a street and a pedestrian steps out, I'm responsible for avoiding an accident, because by choosing to ride a bike, I'm more dangerous then the pedestrian.

That said, if they clearly do something really stupid, then it generally gets cleared up, it's only presumed liability, not automatic liability.

Also, in 20 years of cycling here, I've never had a problem yet, just a thought.

 

[matticus]

And driver's policies are terminated once a successful claim is made against them. They then have to pay huge increase in premiums to take out new ones, assuming they can get cover in the first place. It's not just the insurers who lose out.

As mjr points out, this is a massive exaggeration. How often do insurers cancel your policy?? I think it would need a multi-million pound claim for them to even consider it. Most stuff insurers just take on the chin.